Think of this like an
artist using a blank canvas provided for a naked portrait of Lisa
Gherardini. This naked portrait became “Mona Lisa” after
clothing was added by an apprentice. The owner of the blank canvas
wished for a naked portrait of a lover and might have been upset the
canvas was defaced with the naked portrait including erect nipples.
The canvas owner and the Ms Gherardini had been assured these type
details would never be shown to the public. The owner of the
canvas would then be upset the naked portrait was ruined by an
apprentice painting over the nipples and even any implication of
nakedness. The moral right to control this art should always
have been shared by the two creators Da Vinci and Lisa Gherardini
creating together.

Ms Gherardini’s performance required
adding nothing original except the removal of clothing. This
original naked performance was then covered by the apprentice.

Compare this to GOOG v Garcia where Ms Garcia performed by
being in a video though deceived as to the use. Should Ms. Garcia be
allowed to claim any moral rights to control this original creation?
It is only an original contribution per the expressions and the
appearance of her face since the words are not hers.

A group
of the confused American oligarchy in CA is considering this now and
fair use of this criminal action was not addressed in this list.
Neither was the obvious unconstitutionality of the Title 17 regime failing to protect the human rights violated.